Should Christians eat pork? Drink alcohol? Celebrate Christmas?

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Wine is alcoholic by definition.
No, it isn't. By definition, your bald assertion is refuted:

"...The English word "wine" comes from the Proto-Germanic *winam, an early borrowing from the Latin vinum, "wine" or "(grape) vine", itself derived from the Proto-Indo-European stem *win-o- (cf. Hittite: wiyana; Lycian: oino; Ancient Greek: οἶνος oinos; Aeolic Greek: ϝοῖνος woinos).[5][6]..." [Wikipedia, Wine], and therefore, simply means anything 'of the vine', without reference to anything of alcoholic or fermentation content, although it may include such in one of its definitions.

"Wine – noun

... [3]. the juice, fermented or unfermented, of various other fruits or plants, used as a beverage, sauce, etc. ..." [Wine, definition] - Definition of wine | Dictionary.com

Merriam-Websters 1828 Dictionary: "MUST, n. [L. mustum; Heb. to ferment.]; New wine; wine pressed from the grape but not fermented." - King James Bible Dictionary - Reference List - Must

"Wine - noun

... something that invigorates or intoxicates ..." [Wine, definition] - Definition of WINE

And for additional purposes...

See that word, "intoxicate"? What does the word "intoxicate" mean?

Word Definition:

"Intoxicate - transitive verb

1 poison

2 a : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished b : to excite or elate to the point of enthusiasm or frenzy" [Intoxicate, definition] - Definition of INTOXICATE
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No, it isn't. By definition, your bald assertion is refuted:

"...The English word "wine" comes from the Proto-Germanic *winam, an early borrowing from the Latin vinum, "wine" or "(grape) vine", itself derived from the Proto-Indo-European stem *win-o- (cf. Hittite: wiyana; Lycian: oino; Ancient Greek: οἶνος oinos; Aeolic Greek: ϝοῖνος woinos).[5][6]..." [Wikipedia, Wine], and therefore, simply means anything 'of the vine', without reference to anything of alcoholic or fermentation content, although it may include such in one of its definitions.

"Wine – noun

... [3]. the juice, fermented or unfermented, of various other fruits or plants, used as a beverage, sauce, etc. ..." [Wine, definition] - Definition of wine | Dictionary.com

Merriam-Websters 1828 Dictionary: "MUST, n. [L. mustum; Heb. to ferment.]; New wine; wine pressed from the grape but not fermented." - King James Bible Dictionary - Reference List - Must

"Wine - noun

... something that invigorates or intoxicates ..." [Wine, definition] - Definition of WINE

And for additional purposes...

See that word, "intoxicate"? What does the word "intoxicate" mean?

Word Definition:

"Intoxicate - transitive verb

1 poison

2 a : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished b : to excite or elate to the point of enthusiasm or frenzy" [Intoxicate, definition] - Definition of INTOXICATE

You're using English to try to figure out terms from the Bible?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Fruits lile grapes don't last that long unless chilled, what methods are you referring too?
Exactly! Let him go get some grapes and see what happens.
 

Stravinsk

Composer and Artist on Flat Earth
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
4,562
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Deist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
It may surprise some people here to learn that many of the earliest Christians, according to several sources, were not only completely vegetarian (ie: vegan), but they also abstained from alcohol. James the Just is a good example.

I recognize the stories of Jesus asking for/multiplying fish, but in at least one case it is not internally consistent (within the same gospel), and more broadly not contextually consistent with the old testament. Keep in mind your "word of God" was not readable by the average person until the printing press was invented and prior it was completely in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, which had absolutely no motive *wink wink* for appealing to as wide an audience as possible in selling her Pauline version of the faith, to a meat eating, wine drinking, pagan audience.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It may surprise some people here to learn that many of the earliest Christians, according to several sources, were not only completely vegetarian (ie: vegan), but they also abstained from alcohol. James the Just is a good example.

I recognize the stories of Jesus asking for/multiplying fish, but in at least one case it is not internally consistent (within the same gospel), and more broadly not contextually consistent with the old testament. Keep in mind your "word of God" was not readable by the average person until the printing press was invented and prior it was completely in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, which had absolutely no motive *wink wink* for appealing to as wide an audience as possible in selling her Pauline version of the faith, to a meat eating, wine drinking, pagan audience.
Some early Christian church-homes mixed water with the wine since for a time Christians held service before day break and again after sunset to avoid being caught, drinking wine in the early morning was and still is pretty ridiculous.
Not sure if that relates but its an interesting fact
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
You're using English to try to figure out terms from the Bible?
The Bible defines itself actually (Isaiah 8:20, 28:10,13; Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20, etc). I used sources that men often go to instead of what God already said, because men are hard of hearing Him.
 

JRT

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
780
Age
81
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Untrue. They had many preservation methods.

Yes, they had one that I am aware of --- fermentation. If you are aware of any others I would appreciate a source that I can look into.
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Fruits like grapes don't last that long unless chilled, what methods are you referring to?
Please consider further study:

Num_6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.​

Dried has nothing to do with "chilled". Just as 'jerky', being flesh boiled, cooked and dried out and preserved with salt lasts a long time, so does fruit (like raisins, dates, prunes, etc), when properly dried out, sitting in storage (usually cellar, cave or out of the sun) jars sealed with pitch, etc It is reconstituted with water, which makes it weaker in flavour, than original fresh pressed grape juice. This is the difference between the 'old' (preserved), and the 'new' (fresh pressed), for instance see wedding of Cana, where both (old reconstituted grape juice and freshly made) are mentioned.

There is also the boiling to 'must' option, and reconstitution that way:

"Reconstituted fruit juice is juice produced from a fruit juice concentrate. It differs slightly in taste to fresh juices, carrying a different texture and aroma. ..." - The Truth About Reconstituted Fruit Juice | NaturalTherapyPages.com.au

See the materials I already provided.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Please consider further study:

Num_6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.​

Dried has nothing to do with "chilled". Just as 'jerky', being flesh boiled, cooked and dried out and preserved with salt lasts a long time, so does fruit (like raisins, dates, prunes, etc), when properly dried out, sitting in storage (usually cellar, cave or out of the sun) jars sealed with pitch, etc It is reconstituted with water, which makes it weaker in flavour, than original fresh pressed grape juice. This is the difference between the 'old' (preserved), and the 'new' (fresh pressed), for instance see wedding of Cana, where both (old reconstituted grape juice and freshly made) are mentioned.

There is also the boiling to 'must' option, and reconstitution that way:

"Reconstituted fruit juice is juice produced from a fruit juice concentrate. It differs slightly in taste to fresh juices, carrying a different texture and aroma. ..." - The Truth About Reconstituted Fruit Juice | NaturalTherapyPages.com.au

See the materials I already provided.

Ok

So Jesus made and drank grape juice?

Sipping one glass of wine on occasion is synonymous with drunkenness?
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Ok

So Jesus made and drank grape juice?
Yes. A symbol of His own blood life and doctrine, given in symbol/type for His own wedding for His own bride. This can be seen from the context, the typology, as well as the greater counsel of scripture. This may be shown upon your request.

Hab_2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
Sipping one glass of wine on occasion is synonymous with drunkenness?
Define "drunkenness". Define the size of "one glass". Define "occasion". Then allow me to define it. Then allow ten more to define it.

Even so, and however, "Sipping one glass [size of the glass???] of wine [alcohol]" "on occasion [meaning how many times a day, week, month, year???]" will destroy one's health of liver, kidney's, brain, intestines, etc. It will immediately being to break down the immune system, and cause inflammation [Isaiah 5:11, "inflame"] of the joints, tissues, etc. It immediately begins breaking down moral judgment, and impairs it (getting worse as more is consumed).

As for "drunkenness" it is always subject to context. Native Americans are extremely prone to alcoholism, and one small libation can ruin them. Ask the Diné (aka 'Navajo'), etc.

Yet, even if a person could 'maintain' a standing, 'functional', 10 lagers, it doesn't matter. The scripture doesn't talk about "amount". It talks about the very "nature" of the thing. Notice, please:

Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.​

Character of alcohol? Satanic.

Wine = (in character/nature, in any amount) "mocker"​
strong drink = (in character/nature, in any amount) "raging"​
and both, cause one to be "deceived", and "not wise" (for it attacks the very moral center of the heart/mind).​

Notice, please:

The Bible over and over warns against any alcoholic content, to stay away from it, for it is connected with sin, and the devil.

Of alcoholic "wine" it is stated that ... it "stingeth like an adder" [Proverbs 23:32], "biteth like a serpent" [Proverbs 23:32], "poison of dragons" [Deuteronomy 32:33], "cruel venom of asps" [Deuteronomy 32:33], "vine of Sodom" & "bitter" [Deuteronomy 32:32], "mocker" [Proverbs 20:1], "raging" [Proverbs 20:1], bringing about "wounds without cause" [Proverbs 23:29], etc... also causing the forgetting of the Law and His Ten Commandments, and causing wrong judgment...and the Bible says "woe unto them".

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20​

Woe unto [them that are] mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Isaiah 5:22​

Again, notice the very "nature" described, even without any mention of "amount". Is there a "blessing" or a "Woe" pronounced?

...and so I now ask a few more questions, based upon what we have gathered and in so looking at the terminology above, with whom are the terms associated with, Christ or Satan?

Who is the "adder"?
Who is the "serpent"?
Who is the "asp"?
Who is the "Dragon"?
Who is the one who is like a "raging" beast and lion?
Who is the one which "mocks"?
Who is the one which has given "wounds without cause"?
Who is the one who is "cruel"?

Notice the word associated with it is "poisons" and "venom", the very word linked to "intoxicating".

Notice the word "deceived" is associated with it, and who is the "deceiver", the root of all "deception"?

Does "life" "sting" or does rather "death" "sting"?

Think of the very Person whom we love, Christ Jesus, and how He was wounded without cause [pierced to the heart, pierced in hands and feet and side and head, wounded for our transgressions], for He is innocent, Lamb without spot, and who was the one which did that to Him?

Who mocked Him upon the Cross, "Come down..."?

Who Bit His Heel like a Serpent, and spat venom like the Asp and Adder?

Who wars and rages against Christ as the Dragon?

Who rages even now? And goes to make war with the remnant?

What had the devil even then tried to get Jesus to do? He tried to get Jesus to drink of the poison, and venom [Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23], and He tried to get Jesus to sin on the Cross!

Christ Jesus poured out His life, the pure sweet blood [the prefect anti-type/reality of the pure juice of the grape] of His humanity, and the enemy sought to give him corrupted and sour/bitter wine..., but even then Jesus refused, even unto the end. Holy, Harmless, Undefiled.]

All of these terms are associated with alcoholic "wine" and even far more, and so can True Christians partake of it?

No, we cannot, must not, lest we be destroyed of it, lest we desire to mock Christ, desire to infect others with the cruel venom of the serpent...

The problem is, that many, already read "alcohol" whenever they read the word "wine" in scripture, not having studied and prayed properly about how the Bible uses the term "wine" (or even how it was simply used historically), but read through "beer-googles", spiritual drunknenness of mind/heart, either being decieved and ignorant, or deceiving and willingly ignorant (meaning they desire to feed the lust of their belly, and thus have a differing "god"; Philippians 3:19; see also 1 Corinthians 6:13).
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes. A symbol of His own blood life and doctrine, given in symbol/type for His own wedding for His own bride. This can be seen from the context, the typology, as well as the greater counsel of scripture. This may be shown upon your request.

Hab_2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

Define "drunkenness". Define the size of "one glass". Define "occasion". Then allow me to define it. Then allow ten more to define it.

Even so, and however, "Sipping one glass [size of the glass???] of wine [alcohol]" "on occasion [meaning how many times a day, week, month, year???]" will destroy one's health of liver, kidney's, brain, intestines, etc. It will immediately being to break down the immune system, and cause inflammation [Isaiah 5:11, "inflame"] of the joints, tissues, etc. It immediately begins breaking down moral judgment, and impairs it (getting wore as more is consumed).

As for "drunkenness" it is always subject to context. Native Americans are extremely prone to alcoholism, and one small libation can ruin them. Ask the Diné (aka 'Navajo'), etc.

Yet, even if a person could 'maintain' a standing, 'functional', 10 lagers, it doesn't matter. The scripture doesn't talk about "amount". It talks about the very "nature" of the thing. Notice, please:

Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.​

Character of alcohol? Satanic.

Wine = (in character/nature, in any amount) "mocker"​
strong drink = (in character/nature, in any amount) "raging"​
and both, cause one to be "deceived", and "not wise" (for it attacks the very moral center of the heart/mind).​

Notice, please:

The Bible over and over warns against any alcoholic content, to stay away from it, for it is connected with sin, and the devil.

Of alcoholic "wine" it is stated that ... it "stingeth like an adder" [Proverbs 23:32], "biteth like a serpent" [Proverbs 23:32], "poison of dragons" [Deuteronomy 32:33], "cruel venom of asps" [Deuteronomy 32:33], "vine of Sodom" & "bitter" [Deuteronomy 32:32], "mocker" [Proverbs 20:1], "raging" [Proverbs 20:1], bringing about "wounds without cause" [Proverbs 23:29], etc... also causing the forgetting of the Law and His Ten Commandments, and causing wrong judgment...and the Bible says "woe unto them".

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20​

Woe unto [them that are] mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Isaiah 5:22​

Again, notice the very "nature" described, even without any mention of "amount". Is there a "blessing" or a "Woe" pronounced?

...and so I now ask a few more questions, based upon what we have gathered and in so looking at the terminology above, with whom are the terms associated with, Christ or Satan?

Who is the "adder"?
Who is the "serpent"?
Who is the "asp"?
Who is the "Dragon"?
Who is the one who is like a "raging" beast and lion?
Who is the one which "mocks"?
Who is the one which has given "wounds without cause"?
Who is the one who is "cruel"?

Notice the word associated with it is "poisons" and "venom", the very word linked to "intoxicating".

Notice the word "deceived" is associated with it, and who is the "deceiver", the root of all "deception"?

Does "life" "sting" or does rather "death" "sting"?

Think of the very Person whom we love, Christ Jesus, and how He was wounded without cause [pierced to the heart, pierced in hands and feet and side and head, wounded for our transgressions], for He is innocent, Lamb without spot, and who was the one which did that to Him?

Who mocked Him upon the Cross, "Come down..."?

Who Bit His Heel like a Serpent, and spat venom like the Asp and Adder?

Who wars and rages against Christ as the Dragon?

Who rages even now? And goes to make war with the remnant?

What had the devil even then tried to get Jesus to do? He tried to get Jesus to drink of the poison, and venom [Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23], and He tried to get Jesus to sin on the Cross!

Christ Jesus poured out His life, the pure sweet blood [the prefect anti-type/reality of the pure juice of the grape] of His humanity, and the enemy sought to give him corrupted and sour/bitter wine..., but even then Jesus refused, even unto the end. Holy, Harmless, Undefiled.]

All of these terms are associated with alcoholic "wine" and even far more, and so can True Christians partake of it?

No, we cannot, must not, lest we be destroyed of it, lest we desire to mock Christ, desire to infect others with the cruel venom of the serpent...

The problem is, that many, already read "alcohol" whenever they read the word "wine" in scripture, not having studied and prayed properly about how the Bible uses the term "wine" (or even how it was simply used historically), but read through "beer-googles", spiritual drunknenness of mind/heart, either being decieved and ignorant, or deceiving and willingly ignorant (meaning they desire to feed the lust of their belly, and thus have a differing "god"; Philippians 3:19; see also 1 Corinthians 6:13).
Does grape juice get better with time?

"Forsake not an old friend; for the new is not comparable to him: a new friend is as new wine; when it is old, thou shalt drink it with pleasure"
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Does grape juice get better with time?

"Forsake not an old friend; for the new is not comparable to him: a new friend is as new wine; when it is old, thou shalt drink it with pleasure"
You are asking about Ecclesiasticus (apocryphal, 'Sirach') 9:10? Which speaks of alcoholic wine being better than the juice of the grape? A book which Catholicism loves, so that it supports that whorish 'lush' (Revelation 17) on the "beast"?

1. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) is apocryphal, and non-canon, never accepted by the Levites, or even Jews as a whole. The keepers of the OT Canon. See notations at the end.​
2. Ecclesiasticus, being apocryphal, was never written in Hebrew, but found in Greek only (and that not even koine Greek), which the Levites would not use.​
3. Ecclesiasticus, being apocryphal, was never accepted by the early Christians, and never entered their OT Canon, and was never a part of the OT Canon even of the AV1611 (being deliberately placed between the Testaments, with Headings giving the reason for it being placed there, never being accepted as Holy Scripture by them).​
4. Ecclesiasticus is that type of literature that God warned about in His actual word (Isaiah 8:20).​
5. Ecclesiasticus contains erroneous statements (which also contradict actual scripture) such as in Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 3:3,30, 12:4-7, etc ("The Son of Sirach (Sir 46:20) attributes to Samuel what was done by the evil spirit raised by wicked devices (1 S. 28:11), falsely speaks of Elijah’s bodily return (Sir. 48:10), and excuses his oversights in the prologue." - Apocrypha Article 4 – Select Contradictions in the Apocrypha – Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind ), whereas true scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).​
6. The words of Jesus, Luke 5:39 (No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.), in context, and in direct contrast to the pagan wisdom of Sirch (Ecclesiasticus), show that the New Wine (pure juice of the grape) is better than the "old" (more on this as needful).​
7. According to the Bible itself, there are to be 66 Books, through the Sanctuary (Psalms 77:13), such as in the Table of Shewbread, the 7 Branch Candlestick, Isaiah, among other things like the standard of judgment (40-1), which would automatically exclude Ecclesiastucs/Sirach, as well as the other apocryphal sources.​

Notations.

Josephus:

"... We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8). ..." - https://blogs.blueletterbible.org/b...storical-evidence-of-the-old-testament-canon/

Laodicea:

"... Canon LX.​
These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.​
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon. ..." - NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

Furthermore:

"The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter." To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, they were read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;" and contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets." - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. by Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. of Saint John's College, Cambridge; rector of the United Parishes of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr and Saint Nicholas Acons, Lombard Street; Prebendary of Saint Paul's; New Edition, from the Eighth London Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. Illustrated with numerous maps and fac-similies of Bilical Manuscripts. Volume I. Philadelphia: Published by J. Whetham & Son, 144 Chestnut Street. Stereotyped by L. Johnson. 1841.; page 426 (left column) - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures : Thomas Hartwell Horne : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

(Use the Wayback Machine) http://www.biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm

Apocrypha, and the reasons they are not accepted as "canon":

"... 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone (a little Syriac/Chaldee in Daniel, etc.) used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.​
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.​
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.​
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.​
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.​
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead...​
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. ..." - Sam Gipp - https://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=34.htm
 
Last edited:

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You are asking about Ecclesiasticus (apocryphal, 'Sirach') 9:10? Which speaks of alcoholic wine being better than the juice of the grape? A book which Catholicism loves, so that it supports that whorish 'lush' (Revelation 17) on the "beast"?

1. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) is apocryphal, and non-canon, never accepted by the Levites, or even Jews as a whole. The keepers of the OT Canon. See notations at the end.​
2. Ecclesiasticus, being apocryphal, was never written in Hebrew, but found in Greek only (and that not even koine Greek), which the Levites would not use.​
3. Ecclesiasticus, being apocryphal, was never accepted by the early Christians, and never entered their OT Canon, and was never a part of the OT Canon even of the AV1611 (being deliberately placed between the Testaments, with Headings giving the reason for it being placed there, never being accepted as Holy Scripture by them).​
4. Ecclesiasticus is that type of literature that God warned about in His actual word (Isaiah 8:20).​
5. Ecclesiastes contains erroneous statements (which also contradict actual scripture) such as in Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 3:3,30, 12:4-7, etc, whereas true scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).​
6. The words of Jesus, Luke 5:39 (No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.), in context, and in direct contrast to the pagan wisdom of Sirch (Ecclesiasticus), show that the New Wine (pure juice of the grape) is better than the "old" (more on this as needful).​
7. According to the Bible itself, there are to be 66 Books, through the Sanctuary (Psalms 77:13), such as in the Table of Shewbread, the 7 Branch Candlestick, Isaiah, among other things like the standard of judgment (40-1), which would automatically exclude Ecclesiastucs/Sirach, as well as the other apocryphal sources.​

Notations.

Josephus:

"... We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8). ..." - https://blogs.blueletterbible.org/b...storical-evidence-of-the-old-testament-canon/

Laodicea:

"... Canon LX.​
These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.​
And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon. ..." - NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

Furthermore:

"The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, "we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter." To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, they were read "for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;" and contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens. As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner. To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets." - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. by Thomas Hartwell Horne, B.D. of Saint John's College, Cambridge; rector of the United Parishes of Saint Edmund the King and Martyr and Saint Nicholas Acons, Lombard Street; Prebendary of Saint Paul's; New Edition, from the Eighth London Edition, Corrected and Enlarged. Illustrated with numerous maps and fac-similies of Bilical Manuscripts. Volume I. Philadelphia: Published by J. Whetham & Son, 144 Chestnut Street. Stereotyped by L. Johnson. 1841.; page 426 (left column) - An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures : Thomas Hartwell Horne : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

(Use the Wayback Machine) http://www.biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm

Apocrypha, and the reasons they are not accepted as "canon":

"... 1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone (a little Syriac/Chaldee in Daniel, etc.) used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.​
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.​
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.​
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.​
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.​
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead...​
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. ..." - Sam Gipp - https://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=34.htm
Christians have been reading Sirach long before the RCC. But whatever, how about this one?

"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better"

The man says old wine is better... how does grape juice get better when it's old?

I prefer fresh grape juice
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Bible defines itself actually (Isaiah 8:20, 28:10,13; Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20, etc). I used sources that men often go to instead of what God already said, because men are hard of hearing Him.
I listed the verses below...here's the thing, none of that says that wine isn't really wine. None of that changes the fact that fermentation happens when grapes sit out...even for a little bit and especially in the heat. You're using MODERN thinking to try to explain why you think men should not drink. But men of the bible and even JESUS drank wine.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isaiah 28:13 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Genesis 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
I listed the verses below...here's the thing, none of that says that wine isn't really wine.
Those verses were given to show that scripture defines scripture. It's why those references followed the statement, "The Bible defines itself actually ..."
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
John 2:10 “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

Jesus turned water into wine...and it was the "best". At weddings they drank wine, not juice. Do you know why the host said what he did about everyone bringing out the choice wine first? Because once their guests get drunk they don't notice that the stuff they bring out later is lower quality. Not that people should be getting drunk, that's the explanation for why the host said what he did. So we know that actual wine was used at the wedding.

Jesus turned water into actual wine.
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
John 2:10 “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

Jesus turned water into wine...and it was the "best". At weddings they drank wine, not juice. Do you know why the host said what he did about everyone bringing out the choice wine first? Because once their guests get drunk they don't notice that the stuff they bring out later is lower quality. Not that people should be getting drunk, that's the explanation for why the host said what he did. So we know that actual wine was used at the wedding.

Jesus turned water into actual wine.
Yes, Jesus turned water into "actual wine", the best fruit of the vine, the purest juice of the grape.

I keep showing you from scripture, there are two kinds of "wine". You still confuse the two is all, and that is understandable with how much most Christians have had to "drink", in both kinds of fermentation (natural and spiritual). Like Noah of old (Genesis 9), they have allowed the juice to sit in the sun too long, and fermentation has snuck up on them, and they have become naked and confused, and fallen asleep into sin (1 John 3:4, and no longer even Keep His Sabbath day, the 7th day, the Lord's day, holy - Is Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday. ), but God has sent me to 'clothe the poor and naked' (Matthew 25:36; James 2:15-16; even as He does; Revelation 3:18, and even restoring a sober mind, Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35). Allow me to help you (Revelation 3:17), as God has helped me, but first you have to put away the wine (doctrine) of Babylon, and drink of the water of faith of the Holy Spirit (John 6:35). Do I know how I know you are in such a condition? Scripture tells me so. You are currently placing the bitter for the sweet.

There are two 'kinds' of Wine in the Scriptures [and this will be thoroughly shown from Genesis to Revelation]:

one of Blessing
...and the other of Cursing,
one of Life
...and the other of Death,
one of Joy/Happiness/Peace
...and the other of Woe/Sorrow/Strife,
one of Father/Christ Jesus/Holy Spirit/Ghost/God
...and the other of Babylon/Belial/Serpent/Devil/Satan/Dragon.

The wedding of Cana. A miniature picture of the wedding of Jesus to His own bride, type to antitype.

Notice that the event was a Wedding. Now in the Bible, a Wedding was not a place for getting intoxicated, but rather was a joyous celebration and new life together.

Jesus is the True Vine (John 15:1). As the True Vine, like the natural vine (1 Corinthians 15:46), it takes of the water of life, and turns it into the fresh juice of the grape, the symbol of the righteousness and glory of Christ Jesus (John 2:11), His perfect life (of which the blood of the grape (Deuteronomy 32:14), symbolizes).

The "good" (morally excellent) "wine" (fruit of the vine; John 2:10) was the fresh juice of the grape without any corruption, even as Jesus' life is without sin. His life and doctrine are pure. Men had seen life and doctrine that was somewhat pure, like Enoch, Daniel, etc, and men had seen doctrine that was somewhat pure, but they all had been mixed with water (representation of men). Jesus pure life and doctrine, which came after all the others (Matthew 21:37), was the truly "good" (Luke 18:18; John 10:11,14).

There were 6 water pots, 6 vessels (see Acts 9:15; 2 Timothy 2:20-21; Romans 9:23; Matthew 25:4; Isaiah 52:11, 66:20; etc). 6 is the number of men (Genesis 1, etc). Jesus, is the 7th pure vessel (Isaiah 66:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:4; 2 Timothy 2:21), which pours out into the others, filling them by His word (water of life), which as the branches are connected through the vine (Himself), becomes the "new wine" (Proverbs 3:10; Isaiah 65:8; Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38), the "wine" (juice/blood of the grape) of salvation, rejoicing, gladness, the newness of life without the leaven of sin (1 Corinthians 5:7-8). A gift unto His own bride. God never desires alcohol, fermentation, in His chosen vessels (see Daniel 5; Isaiah 65:4).

The Governor of the feast would represent the Father (Psalms 22:28). The Groom would represent Jesus (Psalms 19:5; Isaiah 61:10, 62:5; Jeremiah 33:11; Matthew 25:1; Mark 2:20; John 3:29, etc). The bride would represent the Church (Ephesians 5:23, etc) and the guests, the angelic hosts. A natural event, that explains a much greater spiritual event (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). to come.

Jesus, called the “Bridegroom” by John the Baptist, comes to see His Betrothed [Church], then after many events, He ascends and goes to “prepare a place” for “her” [He ascends to Heaven], just as the Bridegroom would go back to the Father's house [where there are many Mansions] and prepare one of the rooms [a place in New Jerusalem], and would then after a time when all is ready, and in the timing of the Father, He would then “come again” and “receive” “her” unto himself in the Wedding [Jesus Second Advent].

Notice, that where it was asked for wine in the Gospels at the Wedding of Cana, the wedding had already taken place. This then would point to the time when we will actually be with Jesus Christ. When He drinks it with us "new" (not fermented; Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25) in the Kingdom.

Jesus knew the scriptures, and would not give a gift of fermentation upon such an occasion:
Hab_2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!​
Hab 2:16 Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.​
... continued ...
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
John 2:10 “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

Jesus turned water into wine...and it was the "best". At weddings they drank wine, not juice. Do you know why the host said what he did about everyone bringing out the choice wine first? Because once their guests get drunk they don't notice that the stuff they bring out later is lower quality. Not that people should be getting drunk, that's the explanation for why the host said what he did. So we know that actual wine was used at the wedding.

Jesus turned water into actual wine.
... continued ...

Did not the "governor of the feast" declare that the "wine" that Jesus made was the "best" by saying "...Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now.", and does not this mean it was of perfect alcoholic content, and perfectly 'aged'?

Those are two separate questions, of which the answer to the First is

"Yes, it was the best 'wine'."​

and the answer to the Second is

"No, it had nothing to do with an 'aged' alcholic 'wine'."​

What do the scriptures mean then? Consider that the preservation methods of that time period were not perfect, and any "wine" [Grape Juice] that was held/preserved for long periods of time would lose its flavor and be syrupy and have to have water added to make it more palatable, and therefore, in any given celebration, that which was usually done, is to serve the most freshest juice of the grape at the beginning, anything that had been closer to the most recent harvest, and afterwards they would serve that which was sitting longer in preservation. In this case, it was reversed.

However, Jesus instead, being the Creator (the Son; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:1-3; John 1:1-3; 1 John 1:1-3; Ephesians 3:9; Proverbs 8:22-36, etc) Himself, turns the water, into the perfect juice of the grape, as if it were freshly harvested [for He doth not need to first plant a seed and wait until it grows, for like Adam, He can bring it to full and perfect unblemished fruition instantly, for He speaks and it is so].

It was the very symbol and perfect gift of His own life (blood; Deuteronomy 32:14) and doctrine, for His Bride.

People that read backwards into the text their own preconceived ideas about what the 'best wine [alcoholic]', they [incorrectly] think, is today, being some 'aged' bottle of corruption and dissipation, make a serious error in so doing. Additionally, the word for "good", is the from Greek "Kalos", meaning "honourable, noble, praiseworthy, morally good, etc" [Strong's Concordance for that need this]

Are we to [wrongly] suppose that Christ Jesus, made tens to hundreds of gallons of alcohol to consume at a wedding feast, a place of celebration, blessing, rejoicing and joy, being not one of drunkenness, cursing, licentiousness and revelry? It is a wedding, not a debauche.

Notice that the event was a Wedding. Now in the Bible, a Wedding was not a place for getting intoxicated, but rather was a joyous celebration and new life together.

This [marriage] event is a symbol of the very pure Wedding of Christ Jesus to His own Church Bride, in fact the entire Second Advent is in the context of a Wedding, and even utilizes that language in numerous places.

Jesus, called the “Bridegroom” by John the Baptist, comes to see His Betrothed [Church], then after many events, He ascends and goes to “prepare a place” for “her” [He ascends to Heaven], just as the Bridegroom would go back to the Father's house [where there are many Mansions] and prepare one of the rooms [a place in New Jerusalem], and would then after a time when all is ready, and in the timing of the Father, He would then “come again” and “receive” “her” unto himself in the Wedding [Jesus Second Advent].

Notice, that where it was asked for wine in the Gospels at the Wedding of Cana, the wedding had already taken place. This then would point to the time when we will actually be with Jesus Christ, and He would drink it with us "new" (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25) in the Kingdom.

Jesus then goes to where there are “six” waterpots of stone which contained “two or three firkins apiece”. That is actually a little less than 9 English Gallons or 40 Litres for each Firkin, est.

That is a tremendous amount of “wine” (already on top of that which they claim they already drank or finished (which the opponents to wisdom say is fermented!!!)), and if any of that were actually fermented [alcoholic], then Jesus just advocated liscentiousness, dissipation and revelry, which of course would be sin - for remember they had already consumed all of the previous amount, but since it was the juice of the Grape, given for Celebration, it was the perfect gift, and symbol and represtnation of His own selflessness, His own Blood, and His own Doctrine.

Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to [him], and makest [him] drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! Habakkuk 2:5​

"Thou art filled with shame for glory..." [Habakkuk 2:6;p]​

Jesus is the pure vine [John 15:5], and so then He is the 7th Jar, that vessel of the pure, which eternally pours forth and from which all blessings flow, and so He pours into the 6 other empty jars. His “doctrine” is Pure and His “Wine” is pure, just as He is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens" [Hebrews 7:26], unfermented, and fills us, bringing great joy.

For in Scripture, “wine” is a symbol for “doctrine”, whether Pure or Corrupted, and fermented "wine" always represented sin, apostacy, corruption, cursing, and the unfermented [pure juice of the grape, "...thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape." Deuteronomy 32:14, see also Genesis 49:11] representing joy, life, newness, blessing.

Fermented grape [alcoholic content], represented sin, wickedness, rebellion, and corrupted doctrines:

The Wine of the wrath of her fornication is not just 'false doctrine', though it includes it.
Pro. 20:1; Isa. 5:20-22, 28:1,7-13, 29:9-13;​

(Leaven, fermentation)

Mat. 16:5-12; Mar. 8:14-21; Luk. 12:1; Gal. 5:9​
Isa. 51:21; Dan. 5:1-4,23; Hos. 4:11-12; Amo. 2:8; Mic. 2:11;​
Mat. 9:17; Mar. 2:22; Luk. 5:37-39; Act. 2:4,13; Eph 5:18 (filled with false, unclean spirits of riot and excess, but with the Holy Spirit of God); Rev. 14:8, 17:2, 18:3; Jer. 51:7​

Babylon [hath been] a golden cup in the LORD'S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad. Jeremiah 51:7​

Notice that fermented wine causes madness and drunkenness, and symbolizes false doctrines and hypocrisy which lead to false ideologies, practices and ways.

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Revelation 14:8​

Jesus also spoke of the corrupt spiritual Leaven [fermentation]:

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Matthew 16:6​
Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. Matthew 16:12​
And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and [of] the leaven of Herod. Mark 8:15​
In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Luke 12:1​

… and even by Paul, "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:" 1 Corinthians 5:7, did we notice again the context of Passover and no leavening? For it represented primarily sin, and Christ is sinless, as we are to be in Him.

It's amazing that people, dressed in fair clothes and claiming to represent God, are still calling Jesus a winebibber (alcoholic imbiber) today.
 

Matthew ten Verseight

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
85
Location
http://www.pearltrees.com/awhn
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Seventh Day Adventist
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Christians have been reading Sirach long before the RCC. But whatever, how about this one?

"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better"

The man says old wine is better... how does grape juice get better when it's old?

I prefer fresh grape juice
Yes, the 'old' is not more intoxicating. Some 'read that into the text', they wrongly understand the "parable" (Luke 5:39). It's called 'eisegesis', or can be simply misunderstanding. The context is the "marriage" of the "bride" and "bridegroom". See also Matthew 9:15-17; Mark 2:21-22 (and their immediate contexts)

The older is that which is simply less fresh, or no longer new. The Pharisees, did not want the freshness of the doctrines/teachings and practices of the Holy Ghost. The Pharisees, were also hunkered down in the 'old' (covenant, even) and would not be taught by this 'new' Light (John 1), which freshens all that came before. Yet the disciples could be filled with the new, and were willing to "taste and see that the Lord is good" (Psalms 34:8). It's also why it is very difficult to get those who say they are Christians already to hear/see light which their pastor of 20 years, or their church of 200 years, etc have not shown them. It takes people willing to test taste, and trust.

Some people just get used to that which is now 'old' and complain of the 'new' (which also means renewed), but age never sanctifies error, no matter how hoary with age.
 
Top Bottom